Suckstorff: 10/19 from Daily Northwestern on Vimeo.

We’ve been hearing quite a bit about the “decline” of America lately. It’s an understandable attitude, given our prolonged economic problems and two seemingly interminable military engagements. The sentiment pervades publications from The New York Times to Forbes to Newsweek, which back in August judged the United States to be the world’s 11th “best” country, behind Denmark, Sweden and Canada, to name a few.

The criteria used to determine the “best” countries were highly subjective. Newsweek based its list on considerations of health, education, economic dynamism and political environment, taking into account indicators such as life expectancy, literacy rates, homicide rates and unemployment. While the conclusions reached from these markers are contestable, that sense of “American decline” still permeates the report’s findings.

The report raises some intriguing questions in that it emphasizes the overall quality of life for a nation’s citizens rather than international standing and reputation. While we Americans, with some reservation, may still claim to be the most powerful and influential nation on the globe, the report suggests that laying claim to that superpower status doesn’t necessarily equate to a higher standard of living.

So, if there is some sort of dichtomy between being number one on both the domestic and the international fronts, our lingering sense of “decline” offers us a chance to reevaluate how we define “superpower.” Do we consider ourselves “the best” nation in the world on the basis of our international power or domestic well-being? What characteristics define a superpower, and how are we failing to exhibit those?

The mutual exclusivity implied in these questions doesn’t always hold true. If we have a powerhouse economy, something that garners international power and influence, we’re likely to have more people who are employed, self-sufficient and generally happier. Yet the sheer size of an economy or of an army doesn’t always translate to domestic bliss.

The most disappointing statistic I have seen lately is not our 9.3 percent unemployment rate, which as Newsweek reports far exceeds that of European players like Switzerland at 4.4 percent, or even Time magazine’s projection that China’s economy will overtake that of the United States as the largest in the world by 2030. The figure that most concerns me comes from the Census Bureau’s September report detailing a rise in poverty rates to a new 15-year high. As of 2009, one in seven Americans lives below the poverty line. That, to me, is a more significant indicator of a national decline. Even if we stake our claims to international greatness on the size of our economy, what good does having the world’s largest GDP do if it leaves out 43.6 million Americans? We see this same predicament with education and health care, where the United States boasts some of the best professionals in the world whose services are available only to the privileged few.

Many of you undoubtedly disagree with me on this issue. Perhaps you think being a superpower is more about size and less about distribution. So let’s take this moment of general pessimism about the future to discuss what constitutes a “great” nation. Is it boasting the world’s most powerful military or the world’s biggest economy? Is it having the smallest unemployment rate or the fewest people living in poverty? Are these mutually exclusive?

I would love to see us as a nation reassess our vision for this country. Given the political climate around the upcoming midterm elections, I’m not holding out for any kind of mature conversation. At times like this, politicians exploit peoples’ fears and anxieties instead of addressing and engaging them.

But I don’t think we should view this moment of purported “decline” with anxiety. Instead, we should see this as an opportunity to reconsider our values and rededicate ourselves to pursuing them.

Hana Suckstorff is a Weinberg senior. She can be reached at [email protected].